RSS

Category Archives: astronomy

Stick to the Truth

In Walsh’s video published by The Daily Wire on YouTube last week, he argued that although he doesn’t “question the sincerity or the faithfulness of six-day Creationist folks,” he positioned that when the belief is preached, it can “inadvertently do some harm” and “put obstacles in the way, especially for non-believers.”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-hits-back-after-matt-walsh-claims-creationists-make-reaching-others-with-christianity-harder-228119/

When talking about the Bible it is best to stick to the truth. Paul told us that the unbeliever cannot do anything against the truth.  The truth does not do any harm to evangelism. Misrepresenting what the Bible says does the harm. If you tell the truth, the only person putting obstacles in the way of unbelievers converting is evil.

Faith and love means that you believe God. If God said he created in 6 24 hour days then our faith and our love have us siding with God over sinful man and his words.

If you state something about the Bible that the Bible does not say, then you are not stating what God said but what you want to believe. You are not evangelizing someone to God’s faith but your own version of it. You are communicating that God cannot even get his own act of creation correct. Who would want to believe in a God like that and who would want to adopt a faith where the adherents do not even believe their own God?

The truth is, God created in 6 24 hour days just like he said. There was no failure by God to communicate his creative act to his biblical writers and their was no altering the creative act because the biblical writers did not understand any alternatives. They wrote what God told them he did and since God cannot lie, there are no alternatives to the creation accounts found in Genesis.

The people who are doing harm and creating obstacles are those who adopt and promote alternatives to the truth.

Advertisements
 

God Exists

The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. When you click on the following link, you will see some of that Glory and declaration. God has provided us with the evidence we need to see that he exists. Just because some people deny that evidence does not mean that God does not exist. it means that the deniers are deceived and need prayer

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/index.html  

 

 

Peter Enns & Genesis

You can read his full article at the following link. We are only going to address those statements that are interesting and need to be addressed.

https://peteenns.com/blog-post-ask-4-questions-christianity-evolution/

I recently sat down with myself to ask myself some questions that keep coming up
every
single
time

I post anything on evolution.

It is these questions and some of his comments that we will look at here. Strange that he never comes to a different answer than that science trumps God.

#1. why do you think evolution is true?

I believe that evolution is one of the things that science has gotten right, along with many other things we take for granted every day, because this is the resounding conclusion of the scientific community, including Christians trained in the sciences.

We will have to ask a couple of questions that have not been answered by anyone. First, where in the Bible do both God and Jesus say to take science over their words?  They don’t but that doesn’t seem to stop some people from doing it anyways.

Second, who is the scientific community and what authority do they have that they can say God is wrong? Of course, most people siding with science try to make the Bible a human-authored book. This way, in their minds, they are not attacking God but subjective human thinking. Unfortunately for them The Bible is not a human authored work.

We disagree. Science has not got evolution correct. In fact, they change their minds so much about that theory that the theory is useless to anyone. The fact that evolution has never existed seems to escape the mind of Mr. Enns. Another fact that seems to escape Mr. Enns is that the scientific community is made up of unbelievers, the very people Jesus described as lost, blind and deceived. So how can they get our origins right when they do not have the truth or the SPirit of truth helping them

Without actually being trained in the sciences, it would be rather stupid and arrogant of me to feel I have something to say that would sweep all that away.

It is not arrogance to sweep away the lies produced by the scientific community with the truth of God.

#2.But what about the Bible? Doesn’t Genesis have something to say about all this?

Simply put, no—not in the sense that Genesis is a competing “data set” to scientific models of cosmic and human origins.

Uhm, Mr. Enns, the correct answer is — yes. Genesis has a lot to say about our origins. Especially since our origins was not done in a scientific manner. It is science that has no say about our origins. Creation was a one-time supernatural act that was conducted by a supernatural being with all supernatural power. Science cannot comprehend that fact. What science describes is an unverifiable and unprovable alternative created by people who do not believe God and want nothing to do with him or have him part of their scientific work. How can they know more than God?

The stories in Genesis were written somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, and clearly reflect cultural categories older still.

This is absolutely not true. The quoted idea comes from those scholars who do not believe the Bible or that anything prior to Omri actually took place. Usually these scholars are called Minimalists. They throw out most of the OT because they claim that there is no evidence. When shown evidence, they will close their eyes and state that the events did not happen or try to undermine the evidence in some way.

The Bible was not written as Mr. Enns claims. Most of the OT was written prior to the 5th to 7th centuries BC. Then the OT is not an adaption of other civilizations cultural works or beliefs. That would eliminate God, his supernatural status and power. It would also end salvation as we know it and have billions of people running around looking for God and his divine instructions.

Mr. Enns has no idea what his thoughts do or what problems they cause for himself and everyone.

I don’t expect Genesis or any other Bronze or Iron Age text to answer the kinds of questions we can answer today through calculus, optical and radio telescopes, genomics, biological and cultural anthropology.

Briefly, Mr. Enns does not realize it but those research fields, etc., do not answer any of our questions like Genesis does. They usually bring more questions.

#3. But aren’t you forgetting that the Bible is the very word of God? Why are you assuming that science trumps the Bible?

I’m neither forgetting nor assuming anything, nor am I unconsciously enslaved to some deeply held anti-God presupposition.

Rather, I have come to conclusions about these matters.

They are erroneous conclusions which he refuses to change when shown to be in error. We have tried before. Mr. Enns needs to answer the question, how does he think that fallible humans who use only partial evidence can come to the truth over the God who was there, did the did and has all the evidence?

The Bible speaks the “language” of ancient people grappling with things in ancient ways, and therefore what the Bible records about creation or the dawn of humanity needs to be understood against the cultural backdrop of the biblical writers, not the past 200 years of scientific investigation.

No the Bible is a divine revelation to man, who penned God’s words which contain the truth about our origins. There is no grappling being done in those pages of scripture and there is no ancient cultural spin put on God’s words. Science is not a light illuminating the truth to a dark world. Scripture is.

#4. But doesn’t Jesus trump all of this? I mean, he refers to Adam and seems to take Genesis quite literally. Don’t you think you need to obey Jesus rather than science?

The Bible says if you do not believe Moses how will you believe the words of Jesus (paraphrase John 5: 45ff). Obviously, Mr. Enns does not believe Moses and he does not believe the words of Jesus. He is not the person to go to find any answer.

As irreverent as that may seem, it is an implication of the incarnation. Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he therefore thought like one.

So to him Jesus was just an ordinary man who can be trumped by science. Yet does Mr. Enns hold to John 3:16? If so, how can that be if he does not believe Jesus’ words about creation, Adam and Eve and other OT events? Does he pick and choose which words of Jesus he will accept and which ones he will deny? How was Jesus qualified to be our savior if he was not whom he said he was and did not have the final word on everything?

How can we go to Jesus with our problems if he was like Mr. Enns said? Obviously, Mr. Enns demotes both God and Jesus to sub standard deities or humans while promoting science over them. That is heresy, blasphemous and more negatives.

#5. So, to sum up, and since you asked, to reject evolution on Christian grounds would be to claim some superhuman insight into scientific matters that can only be described as idiosyncratic bordering on delusional, to misunderstand the nature of Scripture they are trying to protect, and to sport a heretical Christology that doesn’t take seriously Jesus’s full humanity.

First, the only one being heretical is Mr. Enns as he makes Jesus after his own image and does not grasp the full reality of who Jesus was. Second, Both God and Jesus said to believe them not science so we reject evolution on Christian grounds because it is not the truth. It is a man-made alternative to trick people into destroying themselves.

Third, those of us who know the truth know that the only delusional are those who opt for evolution over God’s word. We know that science is blind, deceived, lost and looking for answers in the wrong places by going down the wrong paths. Science is in need of a savior, it is not the savior.

 
Comments Off on Peter Enns & Genesis

Posted by on July 12, 2018 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, creation, education, faith, family, Genetics, history, leadership, science, theology

 

Robert Cargill & The Flood

We went to the Bible & Interpretation webpage to look for our next installment for the scholar’s series and we decided to address Robert Cargill’s view that the flood did not take place. Knowing we have addressed one of Dr. Cargill’s biblical fallacies and that we have addressed the flood topic before on numerous occasions, we decided to do it again as he raises some interesting ponts.

We are not going to go science expert v. science expert in this rendition of rebutting anti-flood thinking. That would be boring and a waste of time. But we will address his one or two uses of science as we go. You can read the whole article at:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

#1. So, instead of addressing their spurious claims yet again, I thought I would approach the issue from a different angle: forget about Noah’s ark; there was no world-wide flood.

His post was written in 2010 and he was referring to the group called Noah’s Ark Ministries International. We are not worried about the 8 year time gap because what he says then is still being said today. For example, his claim that there was no world-wide flood. That is a spurious statement that is based more on unbelief than it is on science. There are a lot of people today who make that claim.

Such claims are made because people are unable to use faith to believe God. If we want to, we could pull out the Love chapter and quote that if people love God, they would believe him when he says there was a flood. Love believes all things. We would only use that to point out that Dr. Cargill does not love God and he has said that many times.

#2. The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives

He might have a case if the ancient world did not have multitude of flood stories in almost every civilization that was in existence after the flood. What Dr. Cargill does not realize is that for his theory to work, every member of Israel would have to be brain-dead and not once question the source of the stories. He does not seem to give the ancient people any credit for intelligence, curiosity, or desire to find the truth. He makes them all blindly accepting people who just pray, eat and  sleep the day away.

Since people questioned Moses and his leadership, we are sure that there would be some who would question the adoption of myths created outside of Israel. Someone would investigate to see if the stories in their religious and holy book were true. If they did and found that it was false, they would most certainly have those portions removed. They would not let them remain in their holy words. Since we have no record of anyone doing that, the onus is on Dr.Cargill t provide proof that the flood accounts were copied from secular societies.

#3. Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts.

Yes they do but they cannot provide one real piece of evidence that the Israelites copied from those unbelieving civilizations surrounding them. We have said this before, the Old Babylonians enjoyed a reputation for copying from other societies but there is not one hint that the Israelites did. Where do scholars  get the idea that the biblical writers copied? From the fact that certain secular works appeared before the OT did.

They base this thinking on the idea that the oldest discovered was the first one written. But that can’t be proven either since Moses wrote roughly around the 15th century BC. Plus, chronology tells us that the truth appeared first. Noah and his family told their descendants about the flood. As those descendants strayed from God so did their literature content.

It was not the biblical writers who copied or adopted but the authors who wrote the Gilgamesh Epic and other flood accounts.

#4.These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith

If Dr. Cargill’s theory was correct, then that may explain the Israelites including the account in the OT. It does not explain why those ancient societies far from and never hearing of the Babylonians and Assyrians would also include a flood myth in their ancient literature. Especially if they never experienced a flood. Where did those societies get their information and why would they include and adopt stories from a far-a-way kingdom in their religious writings? Dr.  Cargill cannot explain that phenomenon.

The story of Babel does explain why those far-a-way civilizations would have a flood account in their historical records. Their ancestors got it from Noah and his family. Then to make his thinking sound credible, Dr. Cargill has to change the date of the writing of the OT, especially the book of Genesis. He has no proof that the OT was written in the 5th-7th centuries BC but it is a widely held convenient theory among scholars. One that has been disproven countless times.

Two key words in that quote tell us that Dr. Cargill cannot prove his theory. Those words are ‘appear’ & ‘apparently’. He does not know yet he will go with that thinking over the truth. He also cannot prove it either. The thought that there are two flood stories melded into one is read into the contents of the Biblical account, not taken out of it. There is no ancient evidence that those early accounts were used to make one biblical flood story. That idea is based upon the misreading of the biblical texts by unbelieving scholars.

#5. The combined story preserves vestigial indicators that the account was originally two separate narratives.

This is proof for what we said immediately above the quote. Because Dr. Cargill does not understand the Bible and does not follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, he cannot know what the truth is. More detailed instruction is not evidence for the editing of two secular flood accounts. Dr. Cargill continues to demonstrate his ignorance of reading the biblical text when he states that the flood was recorded as lasting for to different lengths of time.

He misunderstands the Bible when it says

24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Gen. 7 NASB)

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days (Ibid)

The receding of the water added the extra time and he does not take into account context before making his claim:

For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; (Ibid)

Avoid context and you can get confused very easily. The term flood in verse 17 obviously refers to the rains God promised and the length of time he said it would rain. The word water in verse 24 is talking about how long the water remained on the earth. There is no contradiction here, water in a flood does not normally disappear overnight.

#6. Further evidence for the presence of two flood stories comes from the fact that in the narratives that speak about 40 days of flooding, god is referred to as the divine name YHWH, which supposedly was not revealed to readers until the episode of the burning bush in Exodus 3. However, in the portions of the flood texts that refer to 150 days of flooding, god is referred to as elohim…

This isn’t evidence. It is made evidence by unbelieving scholars but it is not evidence. It is evidence that unbelieving scholars are reading into the account what they want to see but it is not indication that 2 different accounts were used. It is evidence that Moses used two different names for God but that is about it. Dr. Cargill cannot produce any real evidence that two secular accounts of local floods were used to record the biblical story.

#7. But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood

This is where Dr.Cargill uses science to support his point and as accurate as people think science is about the past, it is not. No one knows how much moisture exists in the atmosphere and underground. They can speculate but no one can accurately measure it. Plus, measuring modern conditions does not mean that those conditions were exactly the same in ancient times.

Then when you look at the amount of water Dr. Cargill claims to be in existence today outside of the rivers and oceans, you begin to wonder about all those global warming scientists who warn of devastating floods to come once the earth warms up. Since underground water supplies are not affected by global warming… You  get the picture. Then, he says there is only enough water to raise the oceans by about 1 inch or a little more.

Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines.

Mor evidence against global warming threats and predictions.

Dr. Cargill has neither textual evidence nor scientific evidence to prove his thesis. His statement is still founded only in unbelief and not fact.

#8. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s land masses.

Considering that there has only been 1 world-wide flood in al of history it is a bit presumptuous and arrogant to make such a claim as Dr. Cargill does. He is ignoring the boatloads of evidence we do have for the flood. You can read a lot of it at the following link

http://dakotascba.com/Evidence-for-Noah%27s-Flood.php

But that is what unbelievers do. They distort and lie about the facts so they can continue blissfully in their ignorance and unbelief.

#9. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical.

NO… it is time for unbelievers to concede that their arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. For one thing if the biblical account of the flood was untrue, it would not have made it out of OT times. Someone or a group of someone would have proven the account false and a lot of protests would have been made. Then someone would have taken power who believed the protests and had the OT changed. No OT manuscript reflects this possibility. Plus, Dr. Cargill and other scholars do not produce credible, authentic, alternative OT manuscripts that state otherwise.

Producing those would be actual evidence. Making arguments about different names, different numbers is not evidence. From a textual point of view, all Dr. Cargill has is subjective unbelieving opinion. Opinions that do not accept rational and logical counter arguments.

#10. Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.”

We are not addressing his

It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period

because that whole idea is based on a myth about science and its supposed authority. Science has no authority and it is not the last word on anything.

What Dr.Cargill does not understand is that a factual error undermines the ethical truth. Simply because the supposed ethical truth allowed for lies to be told. That means that the ethical truth is not ethical or truth at all but will use whatever it can to make its point. Inspiration does equal inerrancy because if God allowed sin into his holy word then that means God promotes sin and contradicts his own word and being.

Then biblical does mean historical because God cannot lie. SInce Dr. Cargill and his fellow like-minded scholars cannot produce divinely inspired OT manuscripts that say something different from all our preserved and authentic OT manuscripts, then their arguments are not  based on fact but their unbelief. Their deceived minds have been taken on a fairy tale ride and led to believe they are following the truth. When in reality, they are doing what the ancient authors of the alternative flood accounts did- they stray from the truth because their unbelief and evil wont let them accept what ‘God did in man’s history.

It is time for the Christian to ignore secular scholars and uphold  the word of God as true, historical and inerrant.

 
Comments Off on Robert Cargill & The Flood

Posted by on June 25, 2018 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, controversial issues, education, faith, family, General Life, history, leadership, science, theology

 

Bad Archaeology & Archaeology

The first two terms are the name of a couple of websites owned and used by

http://www.badarchaeology.com/

The problem, of course, comes in when that person and his writing partner set themselves up as the final authority on the research field of archaeology. They aren’t but they like to see changes take place in the field of archaeology. We will look at some selected quotes taken from several different pages on that website.

#1. James and I are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops

They have good company. Eric Cline, Robert Cargill, Joe Zias and other archaeologists do not like this either. To a point we do not either. But the real problem  comes in when these archaeologists lump legitimate Christian and other researchers in with the likes of Ron Wyatt, S. Jacobovici and others who really do distort the field of archaeology with their weird views and conclusions.

We take issues with the authors of that website because they use their own standards to make the divide between real and bad archaeology. That is their first mistake. Their second mistake comes in when they declare that their accepted way to do archaeology is the only way to do it. Well archaeology is not like God’s plan of salvation which only has one way of being saved. There are many ways to dig into the past to get the information needed to decipher what actually took place.

Not all the paths are correct but there is more than one way to do archaeology. Oh and, once you get to the truth, no more corrections are needed.

#2. A quick look through the comments that have been made on various pages will throw up some interesting views. In particular, you will find that our critics accuse us of arrogance, bullying, closed-mindedness, even being in the pay of governments to suppress The Truth™. We are none of these. If you return to the site time and again, you will find that we update our pages when new information comes along, correcting errors that we have made. This is something that Bad Archaeologists never do.

You may say this is a good thing as science says it is self-correcting. But the problem is that who is to say that the corrections are correct? Because secular science and archaeology are deceived fields of research and do not have the Spirit of Truth guiding them, there is no guarantee that these men got it right with the second, third or even fourth correction. It is also wrong and irresponsible to develop theories based on limited information.

Another problem is that these men are not going for the truth. If they were, they would realize that the truth is not always found in their accepted ways of doing archaeological research. Sometimes the fringe people stumble onto the truth and do not know how they got there. For the believer, archaeology is all about getting to the truth not the best explanation or the best description of a given excavation site. We are not to lie or sin in our historical work. We are also not to mislead either.

#3. Bad Archaeology is all around us. Many of its ideas are pervasive in popular culture. Its publications sell more than publications dealing with real archaeology. Its web presence is much stronger than that of real archaeology. This is especially true of internet forums, where the most bizarre of conspiracy-oriented ideas are given free rein. With this site we are trying to show that most Bad Archaeology is completely vacuous and valueless. In doing so, I hope that we can also provide a reference point for Good (or at least, Better) Archaeology.

Again the issue is that the term Bad Archaeology is far too broad and generic. It is also very subjective and can contain anything the authors of that website do not like. That means they will include many good archaeologists and the information they uncover. We read several of their articles, the one we thought was the most honest and factual was the one on the Peri Reis map. They made some good points that bear analyzing and reconsidering. We like Dr.Hapgood and read his 3 books which are filled with a lot of useful information. We are prepared to take Matthews’ analysis if it bears out to be correct.

But with that said, real biblical archaeologists have debated this point and those arguments are featured over at Bible and Interp website. There are many problems with communication by real archaeologists which make this situation true. It is too long to go into here, but suffice it to say that sensationalism sells. It sells better than religion sells the ancient past.

We will agree that there are a lot of bad archaeologists out there and most of them try to convince everyone that aliens did it. The other problem we find with this category is that the authors of that website think they get to pick and choose who is a bad archaeologist and who isn’t. There is a lot of bias at play here and that is unfair to those archaeologists who do not meet the approval of the establishment. There is a lot of bias in the field of archaeology. But this does not make the searchers for Noah’s ark credible. Many of those would fit into the category of bad archaeology.

#4. By and large, Bad Archaeologists do not cite excavation reports, catalogues of artefact types, studies of monument classes or the sites and monuments records of places. Perhaps they find the amount of detail overwhelming. Perhaps they do not understand the technical jargon used by their authors. Perhaps they believe that the answers to the questions they pose are not to be found in these minutiae because their questions are too big.

We do not cite excavation reports catalogs, studies, etc., very often. This does not make us bad archaeologists. It makes us discerning because those reports are more subjective than factual. One example is Stephen Collins. He states in almost every report that Tall el-Hamman is likely Sodom. That is a biased opinion not a conclusion based on fact.

We also do not quote from many of the studies on monuments because again, those are subjective and a lot of reading into those monuments take place. Archaeologists tend to think they can read long dead minds and know the motivation behind why something was carved or placed where it was found. They can’t and sometimes, those monuments, if portable enough, could have been moved several times, for different reasons, over the millennia.

To say that good archaeologists must quote from these works is unrealistic and limits the work of archaeologist. We could say that non-Christian archaeologists’ work should be ignored because it is bad archaeology. Their work doesn’t fit with the Bible. We do apply that rule to their conclusions, assumptions, speculations and so on but it does not apply to their work.

Why is this so? Because Christians are not part of every dig. Non-Christian archaeologists do uncover information that no believer has first-hand access to. They cannot get it till the excavation report or book is published. We encourage believers to read non-Christian archaeologists not for their deceived opinions and conclusions but for the information they cannot get anywhere else. To cast them off would be a disservice to believers.

Same with this bad archaeology mentality used by Matthews and his writing partner. They are closing off sources of information needed to learn about the past. Bad archaeologists do dig up information that is sometimes useful. Not everything they do is bad. Of course, not everything established archaeologists do is good. Their work is filled with their perspective and their unbelief.

#5. Many Bad Archaeologists make extensive use of ‘out-of-place artefacts’ or ‘archaeological erratics’. The purpose of drawing these artefacts to their readers’ attention is to cast doubt on the orthodox interpretations of the past that have been developed by archaeologists, usually by questioning what they wrongly perceive to be a linear view of cultural evolution or by trying to undermine conventional chronologies. Occasionally, they are used to cast doubt on models of human evolution (either to demonstrate the creationist claim that humans were created a little over six thousand years ago on the sixth day of Genesis or to demonstrate that humans have been around for billions of years or originally came from elsewhere). More frequently, they are used to cast doubt on the origins of technological civilisation and to show that phenomena such as electricity were known and exploited in the distant past. A few have used them as evidence for time travel or clairvoyance.

The bias of Matthews and his writing partner are exposed. They do not like anything Christian which tells you that their whole definition of bad archaeology is based on their personal bias and nothing objective or superior to them. Those writers are also of the mindset that ony an archaeologist can determine what took place in the past. They are mistaken as archaeology is far too limited for them to ascertain much about past activities.

Because they do not accept the discoveries does not mean they did not take place when they are dated. Their skepticism is not the deciding factor on what did or did not take place. While we will agree that the use of time travel and clairvoyance is wrong, neither are of God, we do not agree with their bias about bad archaeology. Non-believers and bad archaeologists will get some things correct.

Archaeology does not help the theory of evolution at all. Archaeology is a study of ancient societies and civilizations not a study of supposed life development. Archaeology has yet to prove evolution correct and in all cases has shown it to be wrong.

But bias plays a role in what information does or does not get out to the public. What we see in Matthews and his writing partner is the same attitude we see in Jim West, Eric Cline,Robert Cargill  and other biblical archaeologists. They think only they can determine what took place in the past and that the Bible can only be understood and expounded upon by scientific experts.  Those are very elitist attitudes and very wrong.

It tells us that they want to close the field of archaeology to only those who meet their demands and criteria, for the sole reason they do not want to be embarrassed. They know as well as we do that the majority of major archaeological discoveries have come from amateurs or non-archaeologists. Their jealousy plays a role in their division of the field.

Just think, if archaeological excavation was limited to professional archaeologists we would not have the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Computer and much more. Professional archaeologists do not always dig in the right places and there are far more sites waiting to be excavated than there are professional archaeologists.

You need to remember that dating is very subjective and fallible. The dating systems were created by sinful, fallible imperfect people. Do not expect perfection from imperfect people.

#6. Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.

We know that the establishment has done just that. They did it with Woolley and they do it with anyone who disagrees with their accepted conclusions. This is a fact of life in the field of archaeology. Egyptologists do it to those who disagree with their theories about the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Now not all those people who disagree with the establishment is correct, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis and not lumped into one category based on secular human bias.

One of the most successful fringe writers of recent years, Graham Hancock is a leading light of a group of people who like to call themselves the ‘New Egyptologists’ to give a spurious sense of academic credibility. Others include his contemporary David Rohl, who has proposed a radical new chronology of Egyptian history to align it with the chronology of the Old Testament by reducing the dates of Egyptian kings. Hancock also tries to establish an alternative chronology, but it is one that pushes back some of Egypt’s most familiar monuments into a very distant past

We like Hancock because he does a lot of our legwork for us. His books are filled with information that is very useful in understanding the past and the Bible. We do not agree with his conclusions but that does not make him a bad archaeologist. It makes him misguided and wandering down the wrong path. It also shows us that evil will let people discover some truths while deceiving them to go into the wrong direction when talking about the past.

We do agree that the Egyptian chronology is off. By how much, we are not sure. The main source for the Egyptian chronology comes from a couple of sources. One source is Manetho. An Egyptian priest writing not from the beginning but somewhere in the middle or later stages of the Egyptian empire. We do not have one original or copy of his complete work. In fact, his work survives be mere quotes from other ancient authors. A couple of those authors also do not agree with each other on what Manetho said. This is not enough to build a whole history on but archaeologists and Egyptologists do it.

There are more details about this but again that would be a topic for another day.

While we like some of the information we can glean from the Bad Archaeology website, we do not like or agree with their elitist attitude. We also do not like their bias, their hatred for the truth and so on. People like this are not trying to get the truth exposed, they are trying to keep it under wraps. Their generic category hides so much information while letting false teaching get to the public. They are not doing anyone a great service.

We could say that they were doing a lot of self-serving work but we cannot read their minds. Their real reasons are their own. But one thing is for sure, they are not working with God to get the right information to the people. Believers need to work with the Spirit of Truth if they want the right information and to have the truth.

 

 
Comments Off on Bad Archaeology & Archaeology

Posted by on June 24, 2018 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, education, faith, Genetics, history, leadership, science

 

James McGrath & Inerrancy

James McGrath is another professor we have talked with through his website over the years, until we were banned. We do not see eye to eye on many things, including inerrancy. We are using his meme article as it is short and says the points we like to address. Unfortunately, we cannot copy memes, but will do our best to manually quote them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2018/06/inerrancy-redux.html

But first a look at his opening statements.

#1. As I emphasized in recent posts, the reason that I abandoned biblical inerrantism is that it is not merely unbiblical, but anti-biblical

What authority makes this claim? if you follow the link in the quoted words, you have to go to his article to do that, you will see that his conclusion is not based on any religious authority, it is not based on God’s words, but merely of his misunderstanding of the bible and the way it was written. His reason is as follows:

The contradictions, discrepancies, and difficulties are there within the Bible, because human beings have put these texts with their differences into the collection we call the Bible.

He cannot prove those claims and most contradictions are not contradictions. The same goes for discrepancies. Rational and logical research has borne that out.

#2. It silences all but at most one of the diverse voices within the Bible, and denies or explains away rather than accepts the evidence that the Bible itself provides for its own human fallibility

Actually, it silences false teachers, false prophets and those who reject the truth.  There is no evidence showing any hint of human fallibility. These are mere accusations to allow someone to pursue and believe their own personal subjective ideas about Christ, God and Christianity. By removing the label of inerrancy, people get to import their personal preferences into the faith and the Bible.

#3. Bible inerrancy has no real impact on making the Bible clearer or making those who read it correct, but rather the only effect of Biblical inerrancy is to make its adherents more dogmatic

Dr. McGrath is in error here as we see that his argument is not really against inerrancy but the truth. He does not like what the Bible says so he needs a way to change it. Instead of providing real evidence, from alternative divinely inspired material, he goes after the softer and easier target. Inerrancy does make the Bible clearer for we see that God created as he said he did and we learn in Genesis 2 that God provides different details about his creative act. If the Bible was not inerrant, then any opinion, theory and conjecture would be clouding the issue.

Confusion is not of God but that is what Dr. McGrath is promoting with these words and his stance on biblical inerrancy. He takes away the answers God gives us and opens the questions up to a multitude of ideas that would overwhelm anyone who didn’t know any better.

#3. Inerrancy is about the desire to have one’s own views regarded as inerrant

There is more to that quote but this is the main point. It is a wild accusation because Dr. McGrath cannot verify this and he cannot state that those people he claims to be presenting their own views are actually presenting their own views over the truth. The above statement also flies in the face of Jesus’ words– ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Inerrancy helps us see the truth and know it. Any other status for the Bible does not do that. Those alternatives merely hide the truth from its readers.

and the failure to humbly recognize one’s own human proneness to err… shows that this doctrine is not merely wrong but a direct frontal assault about the Bible’s teaching about God…

What makes that quoted statement wrong is the fact that Dr. McGrath thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Changing to the truth actually does show that people recognize humbly that they made an err and now change to what God is saying in the biblical text. Inerrancy helps correct those erroneous views. His words also show that he and others like him are the ones doing the frontal assault on biblical teaching about God. They are changing the Bible and who God is, not those who declare it inerrant.

We are not going to quote more from that article because the issue of inerrancy has ramifications that Dr. McGrath does not like to think about. if the Bible is not inerrant and filled with human thinking, then we have no assurances of salvation or eternity. It is impossible for anti-inerrantists to pinpoint exactly which scripture passage is inerrant and of God and which one is from a human point of view.

Under their thinking, we cannot know God or Jesus and we can never find the truth even though Jesus said we could. In that article, that we quoted from, there were many links to other articles. We took the time to read through some of them and what we found was that Dr. McGrath and others he quotes, do not use one biblical argument to support their view.

It is all their personal opinion and the faulty use of passages that bring them to their conclusions. It is not God leading them to the truth because Dr.McGrath and others like him have never found any alternative divinely inspired scriptures to replace the passages they claim are in error and of human origin. We have made that point before but it is an important point.

Without those verified alternatives, and by verified we mean approved of by the ancient church, written by apostles, etc., they have no foundation for their arguments. Those alternatives have to meet the ancient criteria and not modern ones.

If their arguments are correct, then we must ask, where are the replacement scriptures to guide the church and believers today? Who gets to decide which  scriptures are out and which new ones are in? Obviously, we cannot appeal to the apostles because they have been gone for some time now. We should note that when the apostles caste lots for replacement disciples, they did not impose their personal views or preferences at all. They left the selection up to God. We do not know of one Bible scholar willing to do that today.

The argument against anti-inerrantists is not long. We just point to the passage that says God is not the author of confusion. Anti-inerrantists introduce confusion not bring the truth to light. Who are the anti-inerrantists that they think they know better about the Bible than God does? They do not have any smoking guns, they do not have any historical verification for their words and they do not have textual confirmation for their claims. If you get a chance to compare the ancient manuscripts, you will see that they all basically say the same thing.

Dr. Bart Ehrman and others may claim that there are over 400,000 errors found in the NT alone. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace that is more than the number of words in the NT .Also, according to Dr. Wallace over 99% of those errors do not change a doctrine, an instruction, a command and so on. In other words, anti-inerrantists have nothing to stand on except the fact that they cannot humbly accept God’s word and feel the need to change it according to their personal preferences.

The Bible is inerrant and that should scare a lot of people.

 

Who is In Charge of Right & Wrong?

This is the question every Christian must ask themselves and then properly answer. We are not going to spend a lot of time on this post because we have a busy schedule this morning. BUT this is a very important question in light of an event that took place several days ago.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/wrong-to-eat-chick-fil-a-their-background-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-224850/

The CEO of Twitter says he was wrong to enjoy a Chick-fil-A meal, telling commenters on social media that he had forgotten about “their background,” referring to the Christian beliefs of the company’s owners.

This quote is what God used to bring that question to mind and to ask our readers along with the people they share our material with. For some people it seems that the masses who flock to Twitter are the ones in charge of what determines right and wrong behavior. It seems that those faceless people are the ones who  make the determination as to what the standard of right and wrong looks like and its content. {You can substitute the standards good and evil & morality and immorality for right and wrong as well}.

Many people and churches do use social media as their moral conscience, especially when they are more famous than other members of society. The problem is that the world, in general, are more like the city of Nineveh in the days of Jonah. They do not know their right hands from their left. They do what the book of Judges says and act accordingly to what is right in their own eyes. They use no other standard to guide theiir thoughts or actions.

This is the problem for the church. The church must decide who is in control of the standard of right and wrong. If they choose the option of LGBTQ community, then they are opening themselves up to a very deceived group of people who are both selfish and spoiled:

Erica Baker, senior engineering manager at Patreon, was perturbed at Dorsey, telling him to either delete his Chick-fil-A tweet “or follow up with how much free advertising you’re going to give to [gay rights group] GLAAD.”

If the church declares the government, then they are opening themselves up to very corrupt people who let money, power and control influence their decisions. Then if the church says it is, they are again opting for a very subjective standard that would be flexible and fluid. That standard would depend on the ideology of the church and which church had the most power.

But if the church declares that God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong, then they need to stop what they are doing and act accordingly.

By now you may have guessed what our position is. God is in charge of the standard of right and wrong and people who claim to follow him need to straighten out their act and get right with what God wants his followers to do.

A church cannot save the world and make an impact for the God they claim to love if they do not first accept his leadership, second follow his leadership, third, proclaim his ways to the unsaved people and fourth, do not alter his standards of right and wrong, etc.  How can a church save people to their God when they do not follow him and his ways themselves?

The secular world cannot be in charge of the standard of right and wrong because they have no ultimate, objective standard to use. Right and wrong is solely determined by their own subjective opinion and it varies among tribes, cultures, regions and nationalities. Only God can bring the right standard to the lives of people. He is the ony one who is holy, perfect and good. Every other source is tainted with evil and original sin, including those churches who stop following biblical instructions.

The church cannot be in charge of the standard for as we have seen over the centuries, too many individuals like to place their human mark on the church.  We could say more but we want our readers to think for themselves on the topic of this question. They need to decide their own answer as they are responsible for their own decisions. Just remember, the  standard of right and wrong applies to every aspect of life.

 
Comments Off on Who is In Charge of Right & Wrong?

Posted by on June 13, 2018 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, comparative religions, education, faith, family, General Life, history, Justice, leadership, politics, science, theology

 
 
%d bloggers like this: